R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20

R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20

The principal error identified was that the sentencing judge attributed undue weight to the fact that the offence involved digital, as distinct from penile, penetration, treating it as less serious without sufficient examination of the specific aggravating facts, in particular the gravity of violence, injury, and the complainant's circumstances in count 4. The Court held that objective seriousness in offences of sexual intercourse without consent must be assessed on all the circumstances, not predominantly on the type of penetration. As a result, the original sentence for count 4 was manifestly inadequate and warranted an increased sentence on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal
Outcome
Crown appeal upheld; sentence for count 4 quashed and increased; other sentences confirmed.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeals Against Sentence' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'assessment of Objective Seriousness' 'sentencing Principles' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['crown Appeals Against Sentence' 'sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'assessment of Objective Seriousness' 'sentencing Principles' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed on the respondent for count 4 (sexual intercourse without consent) was manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing digital penetration as generally less serious than penile penetration' 'Appropriate assessment of objective seriousness in sexual offence sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

The principal error identified was that the sentencing judge attributed undue weight to the fact that the offence involved digital, as distinct from penile, penetration, treating it as less serious without sufficient examination of the specific aggravating facts, in particular the gravity of violence, injury, and the complainant's circumstances in count 4. The Court held that objective seriousness in offences of sexual intercourse without consent must be assessed on all the circumstances, not predominantly on the type of penetration. As a result, the original sentence for count 4 was manifestly inadequate and warranted an increased sentence on appeal.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal upheld; sentence for count 4 quashed and increased; other sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal against sentence be upheld.' 'The sentence imposed in the District Court on 20 March 2008 for count 4 be quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced for count 4 to 7 years imprisonment (non-parole period of 4 years 6 months commencing 23 July 2009 and expiring 22 January 2014; balance...